Phytoplankton Composition and Community Structure of Kottakudi and Nari Backwaters, South East of Tamil Nadu K

e Rese tur arc ul h c & a u D q e

A v

f l

o o

Thirunavukkarasu et al., J Aquac Res Development 2013, 5:2 l

n Journal of Aquaculture

o t DOI: 10.4172/2155-9546.1000211 J ISSN: 2155-9546 Research & Development

Research Article OpenOpen Access Access Phytoplankton Composition and Community Structure of Kottakudi and Nari Backwaters, South East of Tamil Nadu K. Thirunavukkarasu1, P. Soundarapandian2, D. Varadharajan2 and B. Gunalan2 1Department of Advanced Zoology and Animal Biotechnology, Sree Sevugan Annamalai College, Devakottai, Tamail Nadu, India 2Faculty of Marine Sciences, Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai-608 502, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract Phytoplankton is one of the important reserves and plays a vital role in aquaculture as food for the larval stages of crustaceans, fish and all stages of bivalves and zooplankton. In the present study, the gross primary production was ranged from 0.08 to 0.35 mg Cm3/hr in station I and 0.07 to 0.34 mg Cm3/hr in station II. Net primary production was ranged from 0.23 to 1.89 mg Cm3/hr in station I and 0.32 to 1.73 mg Cm3/hr in station II. Chlorophyll ‘a’ was ranged from 1.897 to 6.821 mg/m3 in station I and 1.745 to 6.723 mg/m3 in station II. Phaeo-pigments were ranged from 1.721 to 6.861 mg/m3 in station I and 1.321 to 6.425 mg/m3 in station II. During the study period, in station I; about 108 species of phytoplankton were recorded and station II; about 114 species of phytoplankton were recorded. Population density was ranged from 14,408 to 81,930cells/l in station I and 14,306 to 81,630cells/l in station II. Shannon - Wiener's diversity index (H‛) values were ranged from 5,110 to 6,612 (bits/ind) in station I and 5,112 to 6,710 (bits/ind) in station II. Simpson richness was ranged from 0.912 to 0.987 in station I and 0.913 to 0.989 in station II. Pielou’s Evenness index (J') was ranged from 0.841 to 0.959 in station I and 0.846 to 0.959 in station II respectively.

Keywords: Phytoplankton; Composition; Community; Chlorophyll; determine the phytoplankton community structure [5] and the analysis Population density of phaeophytin will give an idea of the amount of pigment which is not photo synthetically active [8,9]. Phytoplankton as primary producers, Introduction form an important source of energy and basis for life in the aquatic Aquatic ecosystems are rich with their biotic resources and they hold environment. Hence, production at the higher tropic levels depends the key for the protein food security in India, where, phytoplankton is ultimately on photosynthetic primary production. Such an important one of such important reserves. They play a vital role in aquaculture as process is always under the influence of a variety of physico-chemical food for the larval stages of crustaceans, fish and all stages of bivalves, and biological parameters. Measurement of primary production in addition to serving as food for various zooplankton organisms [1]. becomes essential for assessing the level of fish production and potential Marine phytoplankton comprises a complex community of several exploitable fisheries. It has also helped a great deal to classify the prawn/ thousand floating micro-algae, ranging in size from about 1 µm up to shrimp field as highly productive (1500 mgC 2m day-1), moderately a few millimeters. Based on the size, phytoplankton can be classified as productive (500-1500 mgC m2day-1) and lowly productive (less than macro-plankton (more than 1 mm), micro-plankton (between 5 and 500 mgC m2 day-1) area [10]. The present investigation was focused on 60 micrometers) and ultra-plankton (less than 5 micrometers) [2-4]. the phytoplankton with reference to primary production, chlorophyll Phytoplankton being the autotrophs (primary producers), initiate the content, pigmentation, species composition, population density and aquatic food-chain. Secondary producers (zooplankton) and tertiary community structure. producers (shell fish, finfish and others) depend on them directly or indirectly for food. Phytoplankton also serves as indicators of Materials and Methods water quality and 'natural regions' which are characterized by typical Phytoplankton samples were collected in monthly interval from species or species groups [4]. In addition, phytoplankton clearly plays the stations I (Kottakudi) and station II (Nari backwaters) for a period a significant role in the global biogeochemical cycling of carbon, of two years from January 2010 to December 2011. The samples were nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon and many other elements. Blooms collected by towing a plankton net (mouth diameter 0.35 m) made of including red-tides caused by phytoplankton are of significant value in bolting silk (No.30, mesh size 48 µm) for half an hour at one nautical the aquatic environment as they affect aquatic economy. Hence, analysis of phytoplankton becomes essential in any study concerning with hydro-biological investigations. A precise knowledge of phytoplankton *Corresponding author: P. Soundarapandian, Faculty of Marine Sciences, pigments in water is necessary in several aspects of plankton research. Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Hence in recent years, there has been a marked increase in the use of Parangipettai-608 502, Tamil Nadu, India, Tel: 04144-243223; Fax: 04144- photosynthetic pigments as markers in identifying different algal groups 243553; E-mail: [email protected] in the waters and to identify changes in the distribution of algae in Received November 25, 2013; Accepted December 16, 2013; Published vertical profiles. This approach is particularly valuable in oceanographic December 19, 2013 research because different algal group’s reflect quite sensitively the Citation: Thirunavukkarasu K, Soundarapandian P, Varadharajan D, Gunalan B physical changes in water [5]. In addition, pigment analysis is the useful (2013) Phytoplankton Composition and Community Structure of Kottakudi and tracer of food-chain relationship, zooplankton grazing and detritus Nari Backwaters, South East of Tamil Nadu. J Aquac Res Development 5: 211 doi:10.4172/2155-9546.1000211 formation [6]. Chlorophyll levels are also used in conjugation with other measurements to generate indices such as carbon; chlorophyll ratios Copyright: © 2013 Thirunavukkarasu K, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which which are used to indicate the general 'well being' of algal proportions permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided [3,7]. Analysis of chlorophyll ‘a’ and carotenoid pigments helps to the original author and source are credited.

J Aquac Res Development ISSN: 2155-9546 JARD, an open access journal Volume 5 • Isue 2 • 1000211 Citation: Thirunavukkarasu K, Soundarapandian P, Varadharajan D, Gunalan B (2013) Phytoplankton Composition and Community Structure of Kottakudi and Nari Backwaters, South East of Tamil Nadu. J Aquac Res Development 5: 211 doi:10.4172/2155-9546.1000211

Page 2 of 9 mile speed. After the net operation was over, some plankton that 1. Both Gross Primary Productivity and Net Primary Productivity were remains on the gauze was washed into the bucket using water. Then the calculated. concentrated plankton samples were transferred in to a clean polythene Chlorophyll ‘a’ container with 5% neutralized formalin as preservatives and used for qualitative analysis. For the quantitative analysis of phytoplankton, For the determination of phytoplankton pigment (chlorophyll the settling method described by [11-14] was adopted. Numerical ‘a’), surface water samples were collected in clean 250 ml polyethylene plankton analysis was carried out using Utermohl's inverted plankton bottles. These water samples were filtered through 4.7 cm Whatman microscope. GF/C glass fiber filter papers coated with Magnesium carbonate solution. The filtrate in the filter paper was allowed to dissolve in 5 ml For the identification of phytoplankton, a standard research of 90% acetone by soaking the filter paper in acetone and crushed well. microscope magnification X 1000, with phase-contrast illumination After that it was kept in a refrigerator in complete darkness for 24 hours. can be used. Phytoplankton was identified using the standard works of Subsequently the filter paper was re-crushed using a homogenizer. [15-19]. For the sake of convenience, the phytoplankton collected were The grounded mixture was centrifuged (3000-4000 rpm) for about 10 assigned to five major groups viz, Diatoms, Dinoflagellates, Blue-green minutes and the supernatant was make up to 10ml with 90% acetone algae and 'others'. and was measured for chlorophyll at 665nm in a UV double beam (Systronics, Visiscan-167) spectrophotometer. Concentration of the Light Extintion Co.efficient (LEC) functional pigments was worked out as outlined by Strickland and Light Extintion Co.efficient was analysed using Sechii disc. Parsons [20]. Primary production Phaeo-pigmentation Primary production was estimated by adopting the light and dark For the estimation of chlorophyll degradation products (phaeo- bottle technique. The samples were incubated in situ in places from pigments), extinction of the acetone extract of chlorophyll was where they were collected for period of 3 hours. The Winkler's method measured before and after treatment with diluted hydrochloric acid (6 of determining dissolved oxygen as described by Strickland and Normality). The change following acidification was used as a measure Parsons [20] was used for the estimation of production rate. Oxygen of the quantity of phaeo-pigments in the original sample. Extinction values observed were converted to the organic carbon per unit volume was measured at 665nm and 750 nm and the concentration was worked of water 'm3' in time t' and the productivity has been expressed as mghr- out as described by Parsons et al. [21]. The biodiversity indices were calculated following the standard formula of [22] for diversity index (H’), [23] for richness (D’), [24] for evenness (J’). 2010 2011 Seasons Months Station I Station II Station I Station II Statistical analysis January 2.23 2.18 2.13 2.14 Two way ANOVA test was employed to find out the variations Post monsoon February 2.24 2.32 2.23 2.13 in population density, species diversity, species richness and species March 2.43 2.52 2.44 2.32 evenness in relation to stations and months. Pearson - correlation April 2.32 2.25 2.12 2.21 coefficient analysis was performed between physico-chemical Summer May 2.81 2.91 3.02 2.56 parameters and biological parameters of both the stations. June 2.10 2.12 2.10 2.11 July 2.75 2.78 2.63 2.72 Results Pre monsoon August 3.23 3.42 3.23 2.71 Light Extinction Co-efficient (LEC) September 2.42 2.37 2.44 2.53 October 2.32 2.48 2.52 2.62 Light Extinction Co-efficient was ranged from 2.10 to 3.23 m in Monsoon November 2.48 2.52 2.63 2.75 station I and 2.11 to 3.42m in station II. Minimum Light Extinction December 2.90 2.82 2.72 2.81 Co-efficient was recorded in the month of June (2010 and 2011) and Table 1: Monthly variations of Light Extinction Co-efficient (m) from January 2010 maximum in the month of August (2010 and 2011) in station I. In to December 2011. station II, Light Extinction Co-efficient was recorded minimum in the month of June (2011) and maximum in the month of August (2010) 2010 2011 (Table 1). Seasons Months Station I Station II Station I Station II Gross primary production January 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.20 3 Post monsoon February 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.16 Gross primary production was ranged from 0.08 to 0.35 mg Cm / 3 March 0.30 0.31 0.24 0.21 hr in station I and 0.07 to 0.34 mg Cm /hr in station II. Minimum gross April 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.32 primary production was recorded in the month of November (2011) Summer May 0.23 0.21 0.13 0.12 and maximum in the month of April (2010 & 2011) in station I. In June 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 station II, gross primary production was recorded minimum in the July 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 month of November (2011) and maximum in the month of April (2010) Pre monsoon August 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.22 (Table 2). The gross primary production is positively correlated with September 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 rainfall, nitrite, nitrate, ammonia, inorganic phosphate and reactive October 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.32 silicate and negatively correlated with dissolved oxygen in station I Monsoon November 0.27 0.26 0.08 0.07 (Tables 3 and 4). December 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.13 Net primary production Table 2: Monthly variations of gross primary production (Cm3/hr) from January 3 2010 to December 2011. Net primary production was ranged from 0.23 to 1.89 mg Cm /hr

Page 3 of 9

Phaeo- Pop. Parameters Ra.fa. T Salin. pH DO NO NO NH IP SiO GPP NPP Chl. 2 3 4 3 Pig. Den. Ra.fa. 1 T -0.226 1 Salin. -0.879** 0.493 1 pH -0.715* 0.611 0.838* DO -0.372 0.693* 0.476 0.603 1

NO2 0.561* -0.725** -0.625* -0.739** -0.950 1

NO3 0.427* -0.727** -0.492* -0.674** -0.934 0.973 1 -0.755** NH 0.616** -0.622** -0.79 0.965 0.948 1 4 -0.622** IP 0.525* -0.812 -0.610* -0.799 -0.891 0.957 0.947 0.910 1

SiO3 0.663** -0.619** -0.693 -0.711** -0.921 0.953 0.908 0.922 0.899 1 GPP 0.352* -0.282 -0.110 -0.247 -0.322* 0.448* 0.491* 0.481* 0.493* 0.432* 1 NPP -0.021 -0.290 -0.040 -0.273 -0.033 0.121 0.198 0.075 0.319* 0.033 0.408* 1 Phaeo-Pig. -0.027 -0.083 -0.104 0.217 0.375* -0.283 -0.299 -0.321* -0.241 -0.263 0.052 0.355* 1 Chl. -0.272 0.114 0.319* 0.382* 0.581** -0.554** -0.531** -0.530** -0.429* -0.598** 0.011 0.318* 0.554** 1 Pop. Den. -0.389* 0.654 0.515** 0.561** 0.860 -0.818 -0.771 -0.767 -0.744 -0.843 -0.324 0.217 0.300 0.638** 1 * Correlation is significant at 5% level (P<0.05). ** Correlation is significant at 1% level (P<0.01). Table 3: Correlation (r) values between physico-chemical parameters, biological parameters and phytoplankton for station-I.

Parameters Ra.fa. T Salin. pH DO NO2 NO3 NH4 IP SiO3 GPP NPP Phaeo-Pig. Chl. Pop. Den. Ra.fa. 1 T -0.274 1 Salin. -0.766* 0.694 1 pH -0.808* 0.593 0.970** 1 DO -0.350 0.543* 0.639* 0.541* 1

NO2 0.582* -0.858 -0.542* -0.724** -0.930 1

NO3 0.428* -0.872 -0.605** -0.638** -0.925 -0.962 1

NH4 0.6161. ** -0.529* -0.729** -0.701** 0.802 0.968 0.949 1 IP 0.525* -0.715** -0.706** -0.642** 0.849 0.930 0.945 0.910 1

SiO3 0.679 -0.564** -0.804 -0.738 -0.906 0.959 0.908 0.924 0.908 1 GPP -0.054 -0.200 0.087 0.157 0.193 -0.241 0.097 0.156 0.056 0123 1 NPP 0.602** 0.135 -0.291 -0.401* -0.028 0.218 0.230 0.322 0.126 0.122 0.959 1 Phaeo-Pig. 0.380* -0.307 -0.442* -0.428* 0.034 -0.011 -0.021 -0.036 -0.011 0.069 -0.003 0.193 1 Chl. -0.124 -0.333* 0.093 0.182 0.271* -0.276 -0.132 -0.187 0.036 -0.251 0.707 -0.097 0.345* 1 Pop. Den. -0.391** 0.614 0.702 0.615 0.874 0.0778 -0..770 -0127 0.746 -0.818 0.096 -0.253 0.075 0.272* 1 * Correlation is significant at 5% level (P<0.05). ** Correlation is significant at 1% level (P<0.01). Table 4: Correlation(r) values between physico-chemical parameters, biological parameters and phytoplankton for station-II. in station I and 0.32 to 1.73 mg Cm3/hr in station II. Minimum net month of May (2011) (Table 6). Chlorophyll ‘a’ is positively correlated primary production was recorded in the month of July (2011) and with salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, net primary production and phaeo- maximum in the month of November (2011) in station I. In station pigments and negatively correlated with nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, II, net primary production was recorded minimum in the month of inorganic phosphate and reactive slilicate in station I. Chlorophyll ‘a’ July (2010 & 2011) and maximum in the month of November (2011) is positively correlated with dissolved oxygen and phaeo-pigments and (Table 5). The net primary production is positively correlated with negatively correlated with temperature in station II (Tables 3 and 4). inorganic phosphate and gross primary production in station I. The net primary production is positively correlated with rainfall and negatively Phaeo-pigments correlated with pH in station II (Table 3). Phaeo-pigments were ranged from 1.721 to 6.861 mg/m3 in station 3 Chlorophyll ‘a’ I and 1.321 to 6.425 mg/m in station II. Minimum was recorded in the month of December (2010) and maximum in the month of October Chlorophyll ‘a’ was ranged from 1.897 to 6.821 mg/m3 in station I (2011) in station I. In station II, phaeo-pigments were recorded and 1.745 to 6.723 mg/m3 in station II. Minimum chlorophyll ‘a’ was minimum in the month of December (2010) and maximum in the recorded in the month of December (2010) and maximum in the month month of October (2011) (Table 7). Phaeo-pigments are positively of May (2011) in station I. In station II, chlorophyll ‘a’ was recorded correlated with dissolved oxygen and net primary production and minimum in the month of December (2010) and maximum in the negatively correlated with ammonia in station I. Phaeo-pigments are

Page 4 of 9

2010 2011 and 5 species of Blue green algae. In station II, about 114 species of Seasons Months Station I Station II Station I Station II phytoplankton were recorded (2010&2011) which includes 14 species January 1.32 1.21 1.28 1.17 of Coscinodiscea, 6 species of Tricertiinae, 13 species of Chaetocercea, Post monsoon February 1.13 1.12 1.12 1.15 6 species of Odontella, 4 species of Eucampiinea, 12 species of March 1.52 1.43 1.32 1.23 Solenoidea, 3 species of Euodiceae, 18 species of Naviculacea, 11 species April 1.65 1.54 1.56 1.43 of Fragilariaceae, 4 species of Dinophysialeas, 17 species of Peridiniales, Summer May 1.12 1.10 1.23 1.18 1 species of Silicoflagellates and 5 species of Blue green algae (Table 8). June 1.13 1.25 1.28 1.13 Population density July 0.31 0.32 0.23 0.32 Pre monsoon August 1.23 1.08 1.42 1.38 Population density was ranged from 14,408 to 81,930 cells/l in September 1.38 1.25 1.25 1.21 station I and 14,306 to 81,630 cells/l in station II. Minimum population October 1.42 1.33 1.62 1.53 density was recorded in the month of December (2010) and maximum Monsoon November 1.31 1.28 1.89 1.73 in the month of May (2011) in station I. In station II, the phytoplankton December 1.21 1.32 1.28 1.23 population densities were recorded minimum in the month of Table 5: Monthly variations of net primary production (Cm3/hr) from January 2010 December (2010) and maximum in the month of May (2011) (Table 9). to December 2011. Population density showed significant variation between two stations (Table 10). Population density showed positive correlation with salinity, 2010 2011 Seasons Months pH and chlorophyll ‘a’ and negative correlation with rainfall in station I. Station I Station II Station I Station II Population density showed positive correlation with chlorophyll ‘a’ and January 5.101 5.283 5.214 5.382 negative correlation with rainfall in station II (Tables 3 and 4). Post monsoon February 4.213 4.321 4.563 4.684 March 4.521 4.635 6.124 6.213 Shannon- Wiener's diversity April 4.635 4.231 6.213 6.381 Shannon - Wiener's diversity index (H') values were ranged from Summer May 6.284 6.314 6.821 6.723 5,110 to 6,612 (bits/ind) in station I and 5,112 to 6,710 (bits/ind) in June 3.841 3.942 4.231 4.112 station II. Minimum Shannon - Wiener's diversity index (H') values July 3.234 3.673 3.432 3.892 were recorded in the month of November (2010) and maximum in the Pre monsoon August 4.534 4.678 6.523 6.429 month of June (2011) in station I. In station II, the Shannon - Wiener's September 3.189 3.289 4.12 4.001 diversity index (H') values were recorded minimum in the month of October 3.824 3.789 5.624 5.871 November (2011) and maximum in the month of June (2011) (Table Monsoon November 3.002 2.546 3.826 3.734 10). The species diversity showed significant variation between two December 1.897 1.745 2.901 3.002 stations (Table 11). Table 6: Monthly variations of chlorophyll ‘a’ (mg/m3) from January 2010 to December 2011. Simpson richness

2010 2011 Simpson richness was ranged from 0.912 to 0.987 in station I and Seasons Months Station I Station II Station I Station II 0.913 to 0.989 in station II. Minimum Simpson richness was recorded January 5.210 5.113 5.222 5.282 in the month of November (2010) and maximum in the month of Post monsoon February 4.153 4.345 4.500 4.645 August (2011) in station I. In station II, the Simpson richness was March 4.610 4.618 6.125 6.214 recorded minimum in the month of November (2010) and maximum April 4.645 4.234 6.118 6.212 in the month of August (2011) (Table 12). The species richness showed Summer May 3.524 3.689 5.724 5.971 significant variation between two stations (Table 11). June 3.741 3.542 4.331 4.212 Pielou’s Evenness (J') July 3.214 3.683 3.422 3.872 Pre monsoon August 4.532 4.673 6.525 6.423 Pielou’s Evenness index (J') was ranged from 0.841 to 0.959 in September 3.689 3.789 4.129 4.101 station I and 0.846 to 0.959 in station II. Pielou’s Evenness index (J') was October 6.312 6.315 6.861 6.425 recorded minimum in the month of November (2010) and maximum Monsoon November 3.102 2.346 3.326 3.434 in the month of August (2010) in station I. In station II, the Pielou’s December 1.721 1.321 2.215 3.162 Evenness index (J') was recorded minimum in the month of November Table 7: Monthly variations of phaeo-pigments (mg/m3) from January 2010 to (2010) and maximum in the month of August (2010) (Table 13). The December 2011. species evenness showed significant variation between two stations (Table 11). positively correlated with rainfall and negatively correlated with salinity and pH in station II (Tables 3 and 4). Discussion Species composition Phytoplanktons are limited in the uppermost layers of the water where light intensity is sufficient for photosynthesis to occur. The In station I, about 108 species of phytoplankton were recorded light incidence at different depths of water depends on a number of (2010 and 2011) which includes 15 species of Coscinodiscea, 6 species factors, like absorption of light by the water, the wave length of light, of Tricertiinae, 13 species of Chaetocercea, 5 species of Odontella, 4 transparency of the water, reflection from the surface of the water, species of Eucampiinea, 12 species of Solenoidea, 3 species of Euodiceae, reflection from suspended particles, latitude and seasons of the year. 16 species of Naviculacea, 9 species of Fragilariaceae, 4 species of When light strikes the surface of the water, certain amount of light is Dinophysialeas, 15 species of Peridiniales, 1 species of silicoflagellates reflected the amount depends on the angle at which the light strikes

Page 5 of 9

Name of the species Station-I Station-II 54. Bacillaria paradoxa + + + + S.No. 2010 2011 2010 2011 55. Leptocylindrus danicus + + + + Coscinodiscea 56. L. minimus + + + + 1. Coscinodiscus granii + + + + 57. Guinordia sp. + + + + 2. C. radiatus + + + + 58. G. striata + + + + 3. C. gigas + + + + Euodiceae 4. C. lineatus + + + + Hemidiscus 59. + + + + 5. C. subtilis + + + + hardmannianus 6. C. ecentricus + + - - 60. Hemiaulus sinensis + + + + 7. C. thori + + + + 61. H. membranaeceus + + + + 8. C. centralis + + + + Order: Pennales Naviculacea 9. Planktoniella sol + + + + 62. Pleurosigma sp. + + + + 10. Skeletonema costatum + + + + 63. Pleurosigma angulatum + + + + 11. Thalassiosira sp. + + + + 64. P. depressum + + + + 12. T subtilis + + + + 65. P. normanii + + + + 13. T. ecentrica + + + + 66. P. elongatum - - + + 14. Lauderia sp. + + + + 67. P. directum + + + + 15. Cyclotella striata + + + + 68. Gyrosigma sp. + + + + Tricertiinae 69. G. balticum + + + + 16. Lithodesmium undulatum + + + + 70. Nitzschia sp. + + + + 17. Ditylum brightwelli + + + + 71. Nitzschia longissima + + + + 18. D. sol + + + + 72. N. seriata + + + + 19. Triceratium favus + + + + 73. N. closterium + + + + 20. T. reticulatum + + + + 74. N. granulata + + + + 21. T. robertsianum + + + + 75. Navicula sp. + + + + Chaetocercea 76. N. henneydii + + + + 22. Chaetoceros affinis + + + + 77. N. granulate - - + + 23. C. currivisetes + + + + 78. Diploneis sp. + + + + Stephanophysis 24. C.compressum + + + + 79. + + + + palmariana 25. C. diversus + + + + Fragilariaceae 26. C. debilis - - + + Thalassionema 27. C. decipiens + + + + 80. + + + + nitzschioides 28. C. coarctatus + + + + 81. Thalassiothrix fraunfeldii + + + + 29. C. lorenzianum + + - - 82. T. longissima - - + + 30. C. messanensis + + + + 83. Fragillaria sp. + + + + 31. C. peruvian + + + + 84. F. intermedia - - + + 32. C. indicus + + + + 85. F. oceanica + + + + 33. Bacteriastrum comosum + + + + 86. Asterionella glacialis + + + + 34. B. hyalinium + + + + 87. Dichtyocha sp. + + + + 35. B. delicatilum + + + + 88. Pediastrum simplex + + + + Odontella 89. Rhabdonema arcuatum + + + + 36. Odontella heteroceros + + + + 90. Diatoma anceps + + + + 37. O. biddulphia - - + + DINOFLAGELLATES 38. O. obtuse + + + + Dinophysialeas 39. O. malleus + + + + 91. Dinophysis caudata + + + + 40. O. sinensis + + + + 92. D. punctata + + + + 41. O. mobiliensis + + + + 93. D. hastata + + + + Eucampiinea 94. Ornithocercus steinii + + + + 42. Climocopium fraunfeldium + + + + Peridiniales 43. Eucampia zoodiaus + + + + 95. Ceratium macroceros + + + + 44. E. carnuta + + + + 96. C. extensum + + + + 45. Streptothaeca indicus + + + + 97. C .breve + + + + Solenoidea 98. C. furca + + + + 46. Rhizosolenia alata + + + + 99. C. trichoceros + + + + 47. R. cylindrica + + + + 100. C. inflatum + + + + 48. R. imbricata + + + + 101. C.lineatum + + + + 49. R. styliformis + + + + 102. C. fusus + + + + 50. R. setigera + + + + 103. C. tripos - - + + 51. R. hebetata + + - 104. Protoperidinium sp. + + + + 52. R. delicatula - - + + Protoperidinium 105. + + + + 53. R. robusta + + + + oceanicum

Page 6 of 9

106. P. depressum + + + + of light by water. The minimum Light Extinction Co-efficient value is 107. P. venustrum + + + + recorded in the month of the June due to high turbidity of water and 108. P. obtusum + + + + heated water in summer season, which reflect the light waves [25]. 109. Pyrophacus steinii + + + + In the present study the seasonal cycles of temperature was high 110. P. striata - - + + 111. Noctiluca sp. + + + + Source of Variation SS df MS F F crit P Silicoflagellates Population density 112. Prorocentrum micans + + + + Stations 35474606 1 35474606 33.47799 4.854336 <0.05 Blue green algae Months 9.39E+09 11 8.54E+08 783.6169 2.82793 <0.05 113. Trichodesmium erythraea + + + + Error 11981032 11 1089186 114. Oscillatoria limosa + + + + Total 9.44E+09 23 115. Spirulina sp. + + + + Species diversity 116. Lyngbya sp. + + + + Stations 0.104413 1 0.104413 114.1064 4.844335 <0.05 117. Anabena sp. + + + + Months 4.695614 11 0.426875 466.5075 2.81794 <0.05 Total 108 108 114 114 Error 0.010066 11 0.000916 + Present - Absent Total 4.810092 23 Table 8: Check list of phytoplankton species recorded from January 2010 to Species richness December 2011. Stations 4.83E-05 1 4.83E-05 19.03594 4.844337 <0.05 Months 0.008263 11 0.000752 296.8324 2.81794 <0.05 2010 2011 Seasons Months Error 2.78E-05 11 2.53E-06 Station I Station II Station I Station II Total 0.008338 23 January 30,638 30,612 30,128 30,169 Species evenness Post monsoon February 31,730 31,925 31,250 31,610 Stations 0.000156 1 0.000156 5.355359 4.844337 <0.05 March 40,315 40,515 40,180 40,121 Months 0.038655 11 0.003515 121.39 2.81794 <0.05 April 60,318 60,618 60.794 62,390 Error 0.000319 11 2.9E-05 Summer May 81,454 81,610 81,930 81,630 Total 0.039129 23 June 70,635 70,638 70,916 70,618 July 32,633 32,938 32,610 32,910 Table 11: Results of Two-way ANOVA for the phytoplankton composition. Pre monsoon August 33,135 33,610 33,718 33,815 2010 2011 September 22,338 21,334 23,038 20,339 Seasons Months Station I Station II Station I Station II October 21,373 21,156 20,181 20,193 January 0.952 0.953 0.956 0.957 Monsoon November 15,635 15,439 15,388 15,385 Post monsoon February 0.941 0.948 0.942 0.945 December 14,408 14,306 14,610 14,615 March 0.954 0.959 0.953 0,954 Table 9: Monthly variations of the phytoplankton population densities (cells/l) from April 0.943 0.948 0.949 0.947 January 2010 to December 2011. Summer May 0.952 0.953 0.954 0.956 June 0.948 0.946 0.947 0.949 2010 2011 Seasons Months July 0.953 0.954 0.956 0.957 Station I Station II Station I Station II January 6,128 6,210 6,119 6,129 Pre monsoon August 0.959 0.959 0.958 0.956 Post monsoon February 6,218 6,222 6,225 6,132 September 0.948 0.949 0.949 0.947 March 6,318 6,418 6,425 6,428 October 0.921 0.923 0.924 0.926 April 6,415 6,420 6,510 6,328 Monsoon November 0.841 0.846 0.847 0.849 Summer May 6,400 6,415 6,411 6,412 December 0.952 0.953 0.954 0.955 June 6,512 6,500 6,612 6,710 Table 12: Monthly variations of Pielou’s Evenness index (J') from January 2010 to July 6,415 6,490 6,418 6,415 December 2011. Pre monsoon August 6,425 6,500 6,425 6,310 2010 2011 September 5,638 5,916 6,119 6,210 Seasons Months Station I Station II Station I Station II October 5,715 5,818 6,221 6,332 January 0.971 0.972 0.978 0.979 Monsoon November 5,110 5,181 5,113 5,112 Post monsoon February 0.983 0.985 0.986 0.987 December 5,929 5,815 5,991 5,891 March 0.978 0.975 0.976 0.973 Table 10: Monthly variations of Shannon - Wiener's diversity index (H‛) values (bits/ April 0.981 0.982 0.982 0.980 ind) from January 2010 to December 2011. Summer May 0.972 0.973 0.976 0.575 the surface of the water. Most of the phytoplankton, the photosynthetic June 0.975 0.976 0.975 0.974 rate varies with light intensity. Different species have different curves of July 0.968 0.963 0.962 0.963 photosynthetic rate when plotted against light intensity, giving different Pre monsoon August 0.985 0.987 0.987 0.989 optimal light intensified for maximum photosynthesis. September 0.976 0.975 0.973 0.963 October 0.958 0.959 0.959 0.954 The Light Extinction Co-efficient (LEC) was maximum in the Monsoon November 0.912 0.913 0.913 0.914 month of August and minimum in the month of June for both the December 0.968 0.963 0.963 0.968 stations. Maximum Light Extinction Co-efficient in August is due to Table 13: Monthly variations of Simpson richness from January 2010 to December high light intensity, transparency of water, less turbidity and absorption 2011.

Page 7 of 9 in summer (33°C) and low rates during monsoon (24°C). This was present study, the gross primary production values were ranged from supported by [2] and [26]. Temperature acted along with other factors 0.07 to 0.35 mg Cm3/hr and these values are comparatively low when to influence the variations of photosynthetic production. Generally, compared to Point Calimere environment [34]. The seasonal cycle of the rate of photosynthesis increases with an increase in temperature, photosynthesis characteristically follows the cycle of temperature with but diminishes sharply after a point is reached. Each species of high rates during summer and low rates during winter [35]. In the phytoplankton is adapted to particular temperature. Temperature, present study also maximum primary production values were observed together with illumination, influences the monthly variation of during summer for both stations which coincided well with high water phytoplankton production in the temperate latitudes. Among different temperature and salinity, while low values were noticed during monsoon environmental parameters, salinity seems to play a key role for the when water temperature and salinity values were low. From the results phytoplankton species composition and density. In the present study, of the present study, it was inferred that no single factor could be found the number of species was high during moderate salinities [27]. to influence the production in Kottakudi and Nari backwaters but it was Besides light and temperature, salinity is also known to influence due to the collective responsibility of various parameters. primary production. Many species of Dinoflagellates such as Ceratium, In the present survey, the chlorophyll ‘a’ and phaeo-pigment Peridiniales and Prorocentrum reproduce actively at lower salinities. The concentration fluctuated widely and the variation between the present study was supported by [28], who found that the temperature, months was similar. Chang [33] noticed a maximum concentration salinity and dissolved oxygen of Cochin water were influencing the of 32.00 mg/m3 in the Westland off New Zealand coastal waters. phytoplankton distribution. Bhattathiri et al. [26] found that the organic carbon and nitrogen The major inorganic nutrients required by phytoplankton for were influence the phytoplankton production and chlorophyll’a’ growth and reproduction are nitrogen (as nitrate, nitrite, or ammonia) distribution in the eastern and central Arabian Sea. Minimum and phosphorus (as phosphate).These nutrients are entered into the concentration of chlorophyll was noticed during monsoon in parallel aquatic system mainly from freshwater flow, sewage discharge and with decreasing densities of phytoplankton population during this mixing between salt and freshwaters. Other inorganic and organic season [7,36]. Species composition of phytoplankton observed in the nutrients may be required in small quantities [29]. They are the limiting present study was more or less similar for both the stations. In the factors for phytoplankton productivity under most of the conditions. present study, almost all the species observed were higher numbers The upper layers of water usually have a reduced nutrients compared in November. The dominant forms include diatoms (T. fraunfeldii and to lower waters. As the phytoplankton population grows in the upper T. nitzschioides) and dinoflagellates (C. trichoceros and P. depressium)

100m of water, the plants absorb more and more of the light. Less light were predominant during November because nutrients (No2, No3, TN, means that the compensation depth begins to move upward and become IP, TP and Sio3) showed higher values in this month and enhance the shallower. It was interesting to note that when the concentration of growth of phytoplankton. This was coincide with earlier reports that nutrients increased, the phytoplankton population density decreased they are dominant forms of phytoplankton population in tidal area and vice versa. Decrease in nutrient concentrations corresponded well near Seronicos Bay [37], in Dutch Wadden Sea [33] and in Greater with an increase in phytoplankton population due to utilization of Cook Strait [38]. In India similar observations of diatoms domination nutrients by phytoplankton especially during summer. The decline in amidst various groups of phytoplankton were made by [39] and [40] reactive silicate, nitrate and inorganic phosphate concentrations during from Portonovo waters, [41] from Cuddalore Uppanar backwaters, summer was a result of uptake by phytoplankton population. Further, [42] from Parangipettai and Cuddalore marine environs, [43] from [30] also noticed a marked seasonal pattern of phytoplankton and large Kollidam eastuary, [44] and [45] from Pichavaram mangroves, [46] depletion of nutrient concentrations in surface waters during summer. from Coromandel coast, [47] from Tranquebar-Nagapattinam and [48] In the Plymouth area, where phytoplankton distribution is very much from Ayyampattinam. influenced by local climatic conditions, their growth was in conjunction In the present study, maximum population density was registered with the nutrient depletion [31,32]. Among the different nutrients during summer when temperature and salinity values were high. studied, reactive silicate showed marked seasonal variations. During This substantiates the findings of [31]. They have recorded maximum maximum density of diatom population, the silicate concentration phytoplankton density in summer season near the base of the stratified reached the minima. region in the Southern Bight of North Sea. Selvaraj et al. [49] recorded Apart from the influence of physico-chemical factor on 12,000 to 322,000 cells/l in the Cochin waters and 3.92 ×104 to 7.23×104 phytoplankton population, the grazing rate of zooplankton is one of cells/l were recorded by Panigrahy et al. [50] in Gopalpur, east coast of the major factors that influencing the size of the standing crops of India. Among different environmental variables, highly turbid nature of phytoplankton, and thereby the rate of production. This is correlated the water column might have contributed much to the drastic reduction with the increase in quantity of zooplankton and so grazing by the of phytoplankton density during monsoon [40,51-55]. In the present zooplankton can be suggested as one of the causes for the decline in study, diversity index values were ranged from 5.110 bits/ind. to 6.710 the standing crop of phytoplankton was also noticed in the present bits/ind. These index values were comparable to those reported earlier study which coincided with zooplankton dominance. An inverse by Ignatiades et al. [37] in the Saronicos Bay. In general, an increase relationship in the distribution of phytoplankton and zooplankton is in population density will increase the diversity index. In the present usually discernible. Thus an explosion in the phytoplankton production study, high index values were observed during summer season in the is also due to the comparative scarcity of zooplankton. A phytoplankton month of June, due to high population density, along with a fairly good bloom naturally results in the sudden depletion of available nutrients in richness of species [43]. As like the diversity index, the species were rich the euophotic zone and such a bloom is usually followed by a lower rate in the month of August of pre-monsoon season due to the upwelling of production. Production rate of phytoplankton will vary from place of the nutrients in the coastal waters [56]. But during monsoon season to place depending on geographical location and enrichment of water particularly in the month of December, low population counts were bodies. Chang [33] registered production ranging from 2.50 to 89.10 encountered with paucity of species when the index values were low. mg Cm3/hr off the Westland of New Zealand coastal waters. In the This could be attributed to adverse conditions like high turbidity,

Page 8 of 9 low salinity and greater freshwater flow. The results of the present 22. Shannon CE, Wiene W (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. study showed that a different environmental factors influence the University of Illionis Press, Urbana. 1-117. phytoplankton production, chlorophyll and species composition and 23. Gleason HA (1922) On the Relation Between Species and Area. Ecol 3: 156- population density in estuary. 162. 24. Pielou EC (1966) The Measurement of Diversity in Different Types of Biological References Collections. J Theoret Biol 13: 144. 1. Volkman JK, Jeffrey SW, Nichols PD, Rogers GI, Garland CD(1989) Fatty Acid 25. Sampathkumar P, Kannan L (1998) Seasonal Variations in Physico-Chemical and Lipid Composition of 10 Species of Microalgae Used in Mariculture. J Exp Characteristics In The Tranquebar-Nagapattinam Region, Southeast Coast of Mar Biol Ecol 128:219-240. India. Poll Res 17: 397-402. 2. Boynton WR, Kemp WM, Keefe CW (1982) A Comparative Analysis of 26. Bhattathiri PM, Aditi Pant A, Surekkha Sawant, Gunus M, Matondkar SGP, Nutrients and Others Factors Influencing Estuarine Phytoplankton Production. Mohanrajum R (1995) Phytoplankton Production and Chlorophyll Distribution In Estuarine Comparisons (Ed. V.S. Keennedy.). Academic Press, New York. in The Eastern and Central Arabian Sea in 1994-1995. Special Section: JGOFS 69-90. (INDIA). 3. Bo Riemann, Peter Simonsen, Lars Stensgaard (1989) The Carbon and 27. Marshall HG, Alden RW (1990) A Comparison of Phytoplankton Assemblages Chlorophyll Content of Phytoplankton From Various Nutrient Reimes. J and Environmental Relationship in Three Estuarine Rivers of The Lower Plankton Res 11: 1037-1045. Chesapeake Bay. Estuar 13: 287-300. 4. Sampathkumar P, Ananthan G (2007) Phytoplankton. In: Coastal Biodiversity in 28. Jayalakshmi KV, Kumaran S, Vijayan M (1986) Phyotoplankton Distribution in Mangrove Ecosystems, UNU-INWEH-UNESCO- International Training Course Cochin Backwaters. A Seasonal Study. Mahasagar-Bull Natl Inst Oceanogr Manual. 205-212. 19: 29-37. 5. Everitt DA, Wright SV, Volkman JK, Thomas DP, Lindstom EJ (1990) 29. Verlenkar XN (1984) Dissolved Organic Nutrients and Phytoplanktons Phytoplankton Community Compositions in The Western Equatorial Pacific Productions in The Mandovi Estuary and Coastal Waters of Goa. Mahasagar– Determined From Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Pigment Distributions. Deep Sea Bull Natl Inst Oceanogr 17: 141-149. Res 37: 975-997. 30. Maddock L, Boalch GT, Harbour DS (1981) Population of Phytoplankton in the 6. Vernet M, Lorenzen CJ (1987) The Presence of The Chlorophyll-B and The Western English Channel Between 1964 and 1974. J Mar Biol Ass UK 61: 565- Estimations of Phaeopigments in Marine Phytoplanton. J Plankton Res 9: 255- 583. 265. 31. Gieskes WWC, Kraay GW (1984) Phytoplankton, Its Pigments and Primary 7. Dalal SG, Bhargava RMS (1986) Relationship Between Chlorophyll-A and Production At a Central North Sea Station In May, July And September 1981. Column Primary Productions. Mahasagar Bull Natl Inst Oceanogr 19: 61-63. Netherland J Sea Res 18: 51-70.

8. Carpenter SR, Elser MM, Elser JJ (1986) Chlorophyll Producuon Degradation 32. Rennella AM, Quiros R (2006) The Effects of Hydrology on Plankton Biomass in and Sedimentauon: Nnphcations For Paleolimnology. Limnol Ocennogr 31. Shallow Lakes of The Pampa Plain. Hydrobiol 556: 181-191. 112-124. 33. Chang FH (1983) Winter Phytoplankton and Micro-Zooplankton Population of 9. Welschmeyer NA, Lorenzen CJ (1985) Chlorophyll Budgets, Zooplankton the Coast Off Westland, New Zealand In 1979. New Zealand J Mar Fresh Wat Grazing and Phytoplanktons Growth in the Temperature Fjord and the Central Res 17: 165-168. Pacific Gyres. Limnol Oceanog 30: 1-21. 34. Sundharesan T (2008) Diversity of Marine Plankton in Point Calimere Coastal 10. Gopinathan CP, Nair PVR, Pillai VK, Pillai PP, Vijayakumar M, Balachandran Water (South East Coast of India) M.Phil, Thesis, Annamalai University, India1- VK (1982) Environmental Characteristics of The Seasonal and Perennial 92. Prawn Culture Fields in The Estuarine System of Cochin. Proc Symp Coast 35. Das J, Das SN, Sahoo RK (1997) Semidiurnal Variation of Some Physico- Aquacult 1: 368-382. Chemical Parameters in the Mahanadi Estuary, East Coast of India. Indian J Mar Sci 26: 323-326. 11. Davis CC (1957) The Marine and Freshwater Plankton. Michigan State University Press. 562. 36. Sasamal SK, Panigraghy RC, Sahu BK (1985) Distribution of Photosynthetic Pigments and Particulate Organic Carbon in Coastal Waters of North Western 12. Newell GE, Newell RC (1963) Marine Plankton-A Practical Guide. 5th Edition. Bay of Bengal. Indian J Mar Sci 14 : 167-168 Hutchinson and Company (Publishers) Ltd, London. 244. 37. Ignatiades L, Vassilion A, Karydis M (1985) A Comparison of Phytoplankton 13. Sukhanova ZNI (1978) Settling without the Inverted Microscope. In: Biomass Parameter and Their Inter-Relation with Nutrients in Saronicos Gulf Phytoplankton Manual, UNESCO, (Ed.A. Sournia ), Page Brothers (Nourich) (Greece). Hydrobiol 128: 201. Ltd. 97. 38. Bradford JM, Lapennas PP, Murtag RA, Chang FH, Wilkinsons V (1986) 14. Mitra A, Banerjee K, Gangopadhyay A (2004) Marine Plankton New Well (G.E) Factors Influencing Estuarine Phytoplankton Production In Greater Cook Strait, Sivewnt (R.C) Book. New Zealand. J Mar Fresh Wat Res 20: 253-275. 15. Venkataraman G (1939) A Systematic Account of Some South Indian Diatoms. 39. Thangaraj GS (1984) Ecology of the Marine Zone of the Vellar Estuary, Ph.D. Proc Indian Acad Sci 10: 293-368. Thesis, Annamalai University, India. 1- 192. 16. Cupp EE (1943) Marine Plankton Diatoms of The West Coast of North America. 40. Vasantha K (1989) Studies on Hydrobiology and Decomposition of Macrophtes Bull. Scripps Inst Oceanogr 5: 1-237. in Portonovo Marine Environment (South East Coast of India). Ph.D. Thesis, Annamalai University, India. 1- 252. 17. Prescott GW (1954) How To Know The Freshwater Algae. (Ed. H. E. Jaques) WMC Brown Company Publishers. IOWA. 272. 41. Murugan A, Ayyakkannu K (1991) Ecology of Uppanar Backwaters. Cuddalore, I. Physico-Chemical Parameters. Mahasagar-Bull Natl Inst Oceanogr 24: 31- 18. Taylor FJR (1976) Dinoflagellates from the International Indian Ocean 38. Expedition. A Report on Material Collated By the R.V. Anton Bruun. 1963-1964. Bibil Botan Left 132: 1-226. 42. Ananthan G (1991) Hydrobiology of Parangipettai and Cuddalore Marine Environs with Special Reference To Heavy Metal Pollution. M.Phil Thesis, 19. Anand N, Mohan E, Hopper RSS, Subramanian TD (1986) Taxonomic Studies Annamalai University, India. 1-57. on Blue Green Algae from Certain Marine Environments. Seaweed Res Utiln 9: 49-56. 43. Patterson Edward JK, Ayyakkannu K (1991) Studies on the Ecology of Plankton Community of Kollidam Estuary, Southeast Coast of India. I. Phytoplankton. 20. Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1972) A Practical Hand Book of Seawater Magasagar-Bull Natl Inst Oceanogr 24 : 89-97. Analysis. Bull Fish Res Bed Canada 167: 310. 44. Kannan L, Vasantha K (1992) Microphytoplankton of The Pitchavaram 21. Parsons TR, Maita Y, Lalli CM (1984) A Manual of Chemical and Biological Mangals, Southeast Coast of India. Species Composition and Population Method For Sea Water Analysis. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 173. Density. Hydrobiol 247: 77-86.

Page 9 of 9

45. Mani P (1994) Phytoplankton in Pichavaram Mangroves, East Coast of India. 51. Anbazhagan P (1988) Hydrobiology and Benthic Ecology of Kodiakkarai Indian J Mar Sci 23: 22-26. Coastal Sanctuary (Southeast Coast of India). Ph.D Thesis, Annamalai University, India. 1-208. 46. Govindasamy C (1992) Coromental Coast of India-A Study on Hydrobiology and Heavy Metals, Ph.D., Thesis, Annamalai University, India, 1-119. 52. Ananthan G (1995) Plankton Ecology and Heavy Metal Studies in the Marine Environs of Pondicherry, India. Ph.D Thesis, Annamalai University, India. 1-125. 47. Sampathkumar P (1992) Investigations on Plankton In Relation To the Hydrobiology and Heavy Metals in the Tranquebar-Nagapattinam Coast India. 53. Geetha Madhav V, Kondalaro B (2004) Distribution of Phytoplankton in the Ph.D., Thesis, Annamalai University, India.1- 267. Coastal Waters of East Coast of India. Indian J Mar Sci 33 :262-268.

48. Santhosh Kumar C, Perumal P (2012) Studies on Plankton Characteristics in 54. Ananthan G, Sampathkumar P, Soundarapandian P, Kannan L (2008) Ayyampattinam Coast, India. J Environ Biol 33: 585-589. Phytoplankton Composition and Community Structure of Ariyankuppam Estuary and Veerampattinam Coast of Pondicherry. J Fish Aqu Sci 3: 12-21. 49. Selvaraj GSD, Thomas VJ, Khambadkar LR (2003) Seasonal Variation of Phytoplankton and Productivity in the Surf Zone and Backwater at Cochin. J 55. Ananthan G, Soundarapandian P, Sankar S (2012) Hydrological and Diversity Mar Biol Ass India 45: 9-19. of Phytoplankton Composition and Community Structure in Chennai Coastal Water. Recent Advan Biodiver India. Zool Sur India, Mumbai.169-183. 50. Panigrahy RC, Sangeeta Mishra, Gouri Sahu, Mohanty AK (2006) Seasonal Distribution of Phytoplankton in the Surf Waters Off Gopalpur, East Coast of 56. Saraswathi R (1993) Hydrobiology of Two Estuarine Systems (Arasalar and India. J Mar Biol Ass India 48: 156-160. Kaveri) in The Southeast Coast of India With Special Reference To Plankton. Ph.D Thesis, Annamalai University, India 1- 267.

J Aquac Res Development ISSN: 2155-9546 JARD, an open access journal Volume 5 • Isue 2 • 1000211